Andrew Crider — Edward de Vere and the Psychology of Creativity

Oxfordians have amassed a great deal of circumstantial evidence in support of Edward de Vere as the author of the Shakespeare canon. This presentation deals with an additional source of such evidence that has not been fully exploited by Oxfordians, namely, the psychology of creativity. The presentation will focus on three topics in this expanding field of inquiry: convergent vs. divergent thinking; the ten-year rule of dedicated preparation; and personality traits of creative individuals. I will also point out the ways in which de Vere’s life and character are consistent with our contemporary understanding of creative eminence and therefore provide presumptive evidence for his authorship of the Shakespeare canon.

This talk was presented on October 12, 2017, at the SOF Annual Conference in Chicago.

Andrew Crider, Ph.D., is professor emeritus of psychology at Williams College. He holds a B.A. in history from Colgate University, an M.S. in educational psychology from the University of Wisconsin, and a Ph.D. in personality/clinical psychology from Harvard University. A licensed psychologist, he consulted for several years in the department of psychiatry at Berkshire Medical Center in Pittsfield, Mass., where he also established a program in clinical biofeedback for stress related disorders. He has published extensively in leading psychology journals in the areas of psychophysiology and psychopathology and is coauthor of Psychology, a widely adopted introductory textbook. More recently he has contributed a psychological study of Will Shakspere to Brief Chronicles (2011) and a piece to the Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter (2015) arguing that Ben Jonson’s De Shakespeare Nostrati was most likely a depiction of Edward de Vere.

[ronroffel]

Another interesting video on the creative process from someone who has done some good research. At 3:17 he mentions that not all highly intelligent people are creative. He also makes the point at 3:26 that creativity also requires competence in addition to intelligence. We could add one more element and that is nuturing. Without being exposed to knowledge on a subject, even the most gifted among us will never solve problems associated with it. The same holds true for writers and de Vere was taught by the most accomplished scholars of his day (Sir Thomas Smith and Laurence Knowell were just 2), unlike the man from Stratford. Crider goes into this at 9:45.

At 4:02, he mentions how creative people combine images in novel ways to solve problems they face. In the case of de Vere/Shakespeare, the problem was incorporating his life story into the plays because he had to conceal his identity due to stigma attached to nobles who associated with 'lowly' actors and theater people.

I believe that de Vere had an eidetic memory since there are so many allusions to small details and events in his life that are clearly in the plays and poems. One poignant example is sonnet 33 in which the writer laments only holding his son for "but an hour"; de Vere had a son in the 1570s who lived only about one day. Knowing this adds depth and emotion to what many have said are merely 'exercises' in poetic form. Adding de Vere's life story to the canon gives us a real person behind the writing, not an abstraction.

[Icha]

A very enlightening talk, thank you so much, Sir. To add on the autonomy part, the younger de Vere already wanted more autonomy of the management of his estate away from William Cecil, hence I think de Vere ticked the box on that note as well. Very informative talk, nonetheless, thank you!

[robrobbins]

Yes, I've found a few creative geniuses with a strong sense of destiny and absolute confidence in the worth and validity of their creative efforts. But this seems quite rare and I'd like to know what studies put forth evidence for this. Whoever wrote the plays of Shakespeare clearly had a sense of tragic destiny and took great delight in their wit and imagination.

[duncanmckeown]

I think there is evidence, if we allow the sonnets to speak, of De Vere's sense that his work was of great worth and would prevail...although possibly not ever under his own name. That is his unique tragedy. It is quite obvious that the idea of suicide is a recurrent feature in the plays, not just Hamlet. And I think there is evidence to suggest that this is how Oxford's life ended. The greatness of his own literary abilities, and his complete inability to gain the recognition he deserved for them, would probably have eventually destroyed any genius. One thinks, inevitably, of Van Gogh.

[DrWrapperband]

chatGPT has shown me that the A.I. at Youtube is a Stratfordian.